Paula Diaz acted for the child’s guardian in her appeal against an interim care order (ICO) that had led to a 6-year-old boy (B) being separated from his parents.
The appeal was allowed and the local authority’s application for an ICO was remitted to the family court.
Background to the appeal
The local authority had been involved with the family since the baby was born. There were concerns about mother’s mental health, as well as alcohol and substance misuse and domestic abuse in the home.
In 2025, B was placed under a child in need plan following reports he was being neglected and his emotional wellbeing had deteriorated.
In February 2026, the local authority started care proceeding and sought to remove the child under an interim care order. (The police had told social services that B’s home was 'dirty, cluttered and unsuitable for a child’).
However, a suitable foster placement was not found.
Therefore the judge made an interim supervision order that B would live between his mother and father, with help from family support workers.
Social workers were concerned about the mother as she was not engaging and had missed assessments organised by the court.
The reports of the father were mainly positive. Though, his hair strand testing revealed that he was still using drugs and alcohol.
By May, the local authority had found a suitable placement and applied for an ICO so B could be removed and placed into foster care.
- The father’s position was that B should live with him under a child arrangements order which would provide him with parental responsibility.
- The guardian supported the father’s proposal but recommended the placement be under a child arrangements order and a supervision order with practical arrangements to be resolved by agreement or by the court.
The local authority’s application was successful.
The guardian appealed and applied for an immediate stay after the hearing which was granted.
B returned to his father’s care.
Guardian’s appeal
The guardian put forward 7 grounds of appeal. These included that the recorder had failed to consider whether steps could be taken to mitigate any of the harm identified so that B could remain with his father.
In support of the appeal
Through oral submissions, Paula supplemented those arguments with 3 factors in support of the appeal.
- While the recorder had identified the test in Re C (the principal test in interim orders), he had failed to apply them when going through the welfare checklist.
- The recorder failed to refer to the positive aspects of the father’s care which all parties had acknowledged.
- The recorder had not addressed measures that might prevent the need for the child to be removed.
Court of Appeal judgment
The Court of Appeal remitted the local authority’s application for an ICO to the family court.
It ordered that B remain in the care of his father under a child arrangements order until the next hearing.
Read the full judgment in B (A Child) (Interim Separation) [2026] EWCA Civ 748